Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: Lieutenant Kije on February 15, 2004, 03:35:12 PM
-
As the thread title implies, I've got a question about contemporary fantasy. I really haven't read too much of it and I find that I would like to become more familiar with the genre for a project I'm working on. Particularly "high fantasy" and not magical realism. I guess when I say contemporary I mean anything 80s to the present.
Here's my question: what works are the most representative of high fantasy literature during this period? I'm looking for a list, around 15 books long, but you can go as low as 10 or as high as 20. If you want to include a series (as so many fantasy books are a part of) just include the first book of the series, or the most representative book of the series in your opinion, but please mention the series along with the specific book.
Remember, I'm looking for 80s to the present, so no Tolkien, or early LeGuin, or early Moorcock, or other such stuff. And the criterion is not the best, but the most representative of the genre. If the best is the most representative in your opinion, that's fine. And just use what you consider to be high fantasy. I'm don't want to re-establish the fantasy genre classification discussion here.
I'm hoping to get a variety of opinions, and I'll value them all. I'm especially interested in the opinions of those who have studied the area of literature concerned because they have aspirations of contributing to it. It seems to me they'd be especially qualified to respond. But please, all who wish to, let me know what you think.
-
Hrm.
Wheel of time, robert jordan.
Belegariad (5 books) David Eddings
Mallorean (5 books) David Eddings
Way of Kings, EUOL
The Discworld Series, Terry Prattchet
The Assassin trilogy, the Liveship Traders trilogy and the Golden man trilogy, Robin Hobb.
The Riftwar series, Raymond E Feist
Dragonlance Chronicles, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman
Orcs first blood trilogy, Stan Nicholas.
The first 1 and the last 2 are of slightly dubious quality, but i still feel them to be very much representative of the genre. Discworld, Robin Hobbs books - both are slightly lower powered than the high fantasy norm but i would regard them as belonging, at least partially. Way of Kings may not be published, but it damn well deserves to be up there.
-
I, of course, recommend The Dark Tower series by Stephen King, which I recommend to everyone. In 30 years, when he's dead, it will be regarded the way that Lord of the Rings is, and I intend to promote it as much as I can now for two reasons.
1.) It's the best fantasy series I've ever read, EVER.
2.) I'll get to spend years saying "I told you so," once it hits mainstream.
I also recommend "The Gift" by Patrick O'Leary, and please for the love of all that is holy, don't discount it on the name of its title.
-
I'd like to point out a few things. First, contemporary fantasy is very much divided in its thematic content. Do you want to follow the Tolkien fantasy line or the Howard fantasy line, because they're very different. Do you only want to include 'High Fantasy' (ie, otherworld fantasy) or would you include spin-off fantasies, such as Harry Potter and Dragonriders of Pern?
Right now, the market is dominated by Jordan and Goodkind. They're both high fantasy in the Tolkien tradition. Eddings, Tad Williams, Brooks, and Feist ruled the 80's. Again, most of these are Tolkienesque high fantasies.
Hobb is an increasingly powerful market force, but she--along with Martin--deviates strongly from the Tolkien 'quest fantasy' tradition. The Hobb/Martin crowd write gritty, even stark, books which are becoming more common on the scene.
-
Would you be interested in children's fantasy as well, or are you limiting this to adult-level reading? If children's can be included, I'll post a couple tomorrow (don't have the list out tonight).
-
I, of course, recommend The Dark Tower series by Stephen King, which I recommend to everyone. In 30 years, when he's dead, it will be regarded the way that Lord of the Rings is
Ugh. I hope Stephen King is never looked at the way Tolkien is. At least, not unless he wrote some better drivel than The Stand. It's not that the plot or ideas are inherantly terrible, it's that he has NO consideration for details. He's lazy and it shows in his writing. Which leads me to believe he doesn't care about the book. If he doesn't care about the book he's writing, why should I care enough to read it?
-
Ugh. I hope Stephen King is never looked at the way Tolkien is. At least, not unless he wrote some better drivel than The Stand. It's not that the plot or ideas are inherantly terrible, it's that he has NO consideration for details. He's lazy and it shows in his writing. Which leads me to believe he doesn't care about the book. If he doesn't care about the book he's writing, why should I care enough to read it?
I'll grant that his early writing is not always good; but Eric, if you haven't READ anything else, you have no idea how much he's improved over the years. And if you haven't read the Dark Tower, you have NO business saying he doesn't care about the details. The Dark Tower world is all ABOUT details, and the little things that you miss in other places coming back to be important or not.
I don't know if you've read anything else, but it seems to me that if you didn't like The Stand, you're probably not a SK person. And as well-read as I am, I'm sorry, but you can't just peg him as a popular hack-writer, even if you personally don't like his work.
-
Heh, i totally forgot about goodkind. Yeah, him too, just be warned that the sex scenes are way OTT and unnecessary. The man has a rape fetish.
-
I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with fuzzyoctopus, you really can't go wrong with The Dark Tower.
As most of you know, I'm a huge SK fan. That said, I can't disagree with SE, but I don't think his two biggest flaws:
1)Skimming the details at times
2)Being terrible at ending books...
aredetrimental enough to dismiss him.
Especially when two of the things he does well:
1) Potraying relationships naturally and making the reader actually feel what the characters are. I've shed tears in a couple of his novels.
2) Being really creepy...
...are done at a skill level that is unmatched by his conteporaries, at least as far as my opinion is concerned.
-
I just want to add to entropys remarks about goodkind, the first book (wizards first rule) in his first series was ok and pretty much rape free, and was very good. But I could not even finish the second book becasue of blatent in your face rape and torture in it, this wasn't even just one small part either but about half the book someone was tied up and being subjected to something. It's realy sad that a good author has to add something like that to make a story more dark.
-
I've heard that he gets over that side of himself after a few books, and starts getting good again later in the series.
As for SK--sorry, SE, I have to take Fuzzy's side. I think he has fantastic skill. Unlike some other popular writers--Grisham--King has real talent. He's probably the defining author of American literature in the 20th century.
-
I've read three SK books, Salem's Lot, the first I read, was adequate. Didn't really creep me out, but didn't annoy me. The Green Mile was the best of the three. But the Stand really really torqued me off. pick up a frickin' atlas and look at it for 15 seconds. It's not going to make you miss deadline. And the fact that I read a REVISED edition where SK had gone through himself and cleaned things up and there were STILL tons of errors.. man, sorry. That's unforgiveable. This was supposed to be one of his signature works, right?
So yes, I DO have business dismissing him. If his archetypal work isn't any good, then I feel I have a good grounding in his work as a whole. I still think he's crap. He may have talent, but unless he can stop and craft his work instead of spewing it forth, I won't recognize that.
-
I've heard that he gets over that side of himself after a few books, and starts getting good again later in the series.
He doesn't. I read up to book 6 or 7, and he keeps on getting kahlan into that sort of situation. It's kind of amazing she doesn't fail a sanity roll.
-
I've read three SK books, Salem's Lot, the first I read, was adequate. Didn't really creep me out, but didn't annoy me. The Green Mile was the best of the three. But the Stand really really torqued me off. pick up a frickin' atlas and look at it for 15 seconds. It's not going to make you miss deadline. And the fact that I read a REVISED edition where SK had gone through himself and cleaned things up and there were STILL tons of errors.. man, sorry. That's unforgiveable. This was supposed to be one of his signature works, right?
.
Sure, you can dismiss him, just don't un-recommend him. I've personally decided to start a campaign against William Faulkner (the man couldn't WRITE). Also, I personally thought Salem's Lot was a HORRIBLE book. Heck, I don't really like any of his first few books - Carrie, Christine, etc. And The Stand was written 20 years ago - even though it was revised, it wasn't revised much - mostly he just added back in the stuff that he had to take out 'cause it was so long.
-
Sure, you can dismiss him, just don't un-recommend him. I've personally decided to start a campaign against William Faulkner (the man couldn't WRITE).
I'm not sure I understand the difference. If he's dismissable, he's not commendable. I specifically take issue with comparing SK to Tolkien. As I was telling Brian last night, Tolkien, imo, has essentially done what Cervantes did with Don Quixote in reverse. (to wit, pioneering a genre into serious usage, and converting the sentiments of a culture toward their own perceptions) We're talking a 3 and a half century distance between works of that impact. Now, it's true that I haven't read any Dark Tower novels, but are you comfortable comparing him to Cervantes (who is, after all, very much comparable to Shakespeare, are you comfortable puttin him in that league?) I'm not saying Tolkien DID as much as Cervantes, but it's definitely coming close.
I won't argue with you on Faulkner, though. It's my opinion that much of American fiction is vastly over-rated, with a few exceptions.
-
I think Tolkien was a great linguist, with amazing ideas, but his writing I can take or leave. It's very hard to read, and therefore while his books may be great, they're not accessable. King's writing can be read by anyone, and in fact in my high school, that's how they'd get remedial students to read.
The purpose of this thread is to recommend books to Kije. You don't have to like SK, but you can't say "No, Kije, don't read him because I don't like him." Don't "Un-recommend" him. That's what I meant.
And no- I have no problem putting King with Cervantes, but then I'm a huge fan of his so why should I have a problem with it?
-
I like Peter David a lot, but I'd never compare his accomplishments to Shakespeare. I enjoy George Lucas films too, but I'd never compare his accomlishments to the best of the best in terms of art. I just can't imagine anyone comparing Stephen King to genius on that level. <shrug>
-
"Stephen King's writing is securely rooted in the great American tradition that glorifies spirit-of-place and the abiding power of narrative. He crafts stylish, mind-bending page-turners that contain profound moral truths - some beautiful, some harrowing - about our inner lives. This Award commemorates Mr. King's well-earned place of distinction in the wide world of readers and booklovers of all ages."
--Neil Baldwin, chairman of the National Book Foundation (the guys who give out the National Book Awards.)
Of course, giving SK a National Book Award sparked a huge controversy, but he's one of the few popular authors to ever get one. (Ray Bradbury's the only other one who comes to mind.)
But, anyway, this discussion isn't really about SK's writing. It's about fantasy, specifically high fantasy. I haven't read gunslinger yet (I bought books 2-5 because I saw them on sale, but I don't have the first one....) but knowing what I do of them, I'm not sure they fit Kije's criteria.
-
"Stephen King's writing is securely rooted in the great American tradition that glorifies spirit-of-place and the abiding power of narrative. He crafts stylish, mind-bending page-turners that contain profound moral truths - some beautiful, some harrowing - about our inner lives. This Award commemorates Mr. King's well-earned place of distinction in the wide world of readers and booklovers of all ages."
See, I don't think what I've read of his is mind-bending or page-turners. I don't think most of them contain much profound. Stylish, yes. I can see him glorifying spirit-of-place (though that's a vague enough term), but I don't see him glorifying narrative when he doesn't take care with his own narration.
-
I think we could easily move this to the rants section, but I don't feel the need to defend King today; I think his writing defends itself well enough and if you haven't read as much of it as I have, then that's too bad for me.
-
I wouldn't compare SK to Shakespeare or Cervantes, but I'd certainly compare him to Dickens: a popular, "play to the cheap seats" writer who, in a hundred years, will probably be considered an A-list author. But, as has been said before, this thread is not about SK.
For Kije's list, I'd makes sure to include Piers Anthony and the Dragonlance books. Hollow dreck, perhaps, but certainly iconic of the period you're looking at.
-
Dragonlance, yes. Anthony...well, perhaps. He's fallen out of favor recently, but he certainly was a powerful force in the late 80's/early 90's.
-
well, if we're talking representative.... Terry Brooks was really big. Yeah Sword... was published in 1977, but that didn't change his popularity in the 80s, when he released several more books, including mroe Shanarra and the Magic Kingdom series.
-
Speaking of the infamous '77, there's also Thomas Covenant. It was first published in the late 70's, but it was also very popular in the 80'. In fact, TC2 was the ONLY fantasy book that got on the Publisher's Weekly yearly top ten bestseller list before Harry Potter came along. (Yup. Jordan/Goodkind/Brooks never managed it. They probably got on the weekly lists, but they were never one of the top ten for the year.)
-
Two words: David Gemmel.
-
Did you decide if you wanted young adult fantasy as well, or just adult fantasy?
-
I think I'll stick with straight fantasy. Of course, many people relegated all fantasy to the children, so...yeah, actually, if you want to mention some of the more representative YA fantasy pieces of the period that'd be great.
So far I get this: Anthony, Eddings, Weis/Hickman, Jordan, Goodkind, Brooks, Feist as the most representative.
And possibly Hobb and Martin, and Gemmel.
Am I missing some stuff people really think should be included?
-
Well if you haven't read the Enchanted Forest series by Patricia Wrede you should. Or anything by Dianna Wynne Jones, especially "Howl's Moving Castle"
Other than that- YA fantasy at least tends to be shorter. A nice Saturday's read or something. You could try something like Tanith Lee's "The Black Unicorn"
-
Or "The Last Unicorn."
If you are looking for young adult fantasy, the Prydian Chronicles were always a favorite of mine. The Narnia stuff just hits you over the head with the heavy-handed Christian symbolism.
As for the Dragonlance books: when you are 12, Raistlin is cool beyond words. When you read the series again at 25, Raistlin is a whiny twerp.
Oh, and I like the woman who does all that modern-day Celtic stuff. I can't remember her name off the top of my head. She did a book based on a Gypsy ghost story called Mulengro years ago which is still a good read today.
-
I think someone's already mentioned Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising series, which was published in the 70s anyway. For newer stuff, there's Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl books. Susan Fletcher's dragon books are definitely high fantasy: Dragon's Milk, Flight of the Dragon Kyn, and Sign of the Dove.
The best of these, and also the most representative, is Garth Nix's Sabriel/Lirael/Abhorsen trilogy. He's Australian and it just gives a flavor to the books that you don't get in other high fantasy. I highly enjoyed them. They were published within the last few years (starting in 1995).
Also, Robin McKinley's The Blue Sword and The Hero and the Crown. One of them, can't remember which one, got the Newbery Honor the year it was published (early 80s).
-
And then of course I always associate Garth Nix with Monica Furlong's "Wise Child" and "Juniper", because the same person did all the covers.
-
I've heard very good things about Sabriel, but I found Lirael unreadably dumb. maybe that's because I didn't read the first one, but from what I hear they're supposed to stand alone pretty well.
Robin McKinley, though, is great.
-
I'd say that Lirael wasn't as good as Sabriel, but I wouldn't necessarily classify it as "unreadably dumb." I think maybe it appeals more to the girl-types, though (like me!). I would suggest reading Sabriel first, as it makes a whole lot more sense. And I think that Abhorsen brings the first two books together and resolves the cliffhanger of Lirael.
-
I think my main problem with Lirael was that stupid dog. Some characters make me want to stop reading a novel--that one made me want to punch the author in the face.
-
Actually, I completely agree with you on the dog. I guess I just kind of skimmed every time it spoke. I kept thinking that the dog was some sort of evil force that she was allowing herself to be deceived by.
Have you read Abhorsen? The dog's existence is explained a little more.
(***Possible spoiler***) Its nature is rather like Mogget's, though I don't want to tell you too much if you haven't read it.
-
I thought I would just mention some I didn't notice had been yet.
Tales of Alvin Maker by Orson Scott Card
Word and Void by Terry Brooks
Saga of Recluce by LE Modesitt jr
Coldfire Trilogy by CS Friedman - this is a very awesome story